Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Clarification around cannabis coverage #6

Closed
runnnnnn opened this Issue May 16, 2018 · 2 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@runnnnnn
Copy link

commented May 16, 2018

"We don't cover damage caused by illegal activity by someone listed on this policy, nor property that is illegal for you to own."

Please clarify whether or not this intends to provide coverage for finished cannabis products, plants, or grow equipment in the event of an otherwise covered loss. Property can be illegal to own per the federal government, but legal per the state government.

@ckvo

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

commented May 16, 2018

@runnnnnn So long as it's considered legal at the place where you live, it wouldn't be considered illegal under a policy issued in that state. But I'll just add that if the finished products, plants or equipment are related to business use - that wouldn't be covered.

"We don’t cover stuff that’s usually covered by other types of insurance policies such as auto, travel, pet, or business. So damage to your car, injuries to your pet, or damage to stuff used for business such as your work laptop, professional camera gear, and so on, aren’t covered."

Hope that clears things up.

@ckvo ckvo closed this May 23, 2018

@runnnnnn

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

commented May 23, 2018

Understood, just realize that things can be both legal and illegal at the place one resides, not to be all Schrodinger on you. The state views it as legal, but the federal government views it as illegal. I live in both the state and the country. I know Oregon is particularly feisty about this distinction.

I also don't have a great suggestion that isn't wordy, and I appreciate the idea of Policy 2.0 enough to not bother with that approach.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.